Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> DIANA (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2002] UKIntelP o49102 (28 November 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o49102.html
Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o49102
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
DIANA (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2002] UKIntelP o49102 (28 November 2002)
For the whole decision click here: o49102
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/491/02
- Decision date
- 28 November 2002
- Hearing officer
- Mr J MacGillivray
- Mark
- DIANA
- Classes
- 14
- Registered Proprietor
- H Kalatizadeh & Y Kalatizadeh
- Applicant for Revocation
- Lady Sarah McCorquodale as executor of the estate of Diana, Princess of Wales
- Revocation
- Section 46(1)(d)
Result
Application for revocation, Section 46(1)(d), failed.
Points Of Interest
- 1. Use in a form which alters the distinctive character of the mark, Section 46(2).
- 2. Use in a form liable to mislead the public (Section 46(1)(d).
- 3. Misuse of a symbol indicating a registered mark (Section 95).
- 4. Costs in proceedings before the Registrar.
Summary
The applicant for revocation alleged that by reason of the use made of it (the proprietor had taken to using the mark with a coronet incorporated as a dot to the letter 'i') the mark was now liable to mislead the public. The registered proprietors contended that the mark complained of was not the registered mark; it was a different, unregistered mark. (They had in fact been using the mark with an 'R' symbol indicating that it was registered but they now undertook to cease that usage.)
Reviewing the matter, the Hearing Officer concluded that the mark as used was indeed not the mark as registered; its distinctive character had been altered. Consequently the application for revocation under Section 46(1)(d) failed.
The registered proprietors asked for a substantial award of costs in view of the applicant’s various requests for extensions of time. However, the Hearing Officer noted that these requests had not been the subject of any submissions at the time and he declined to award costs outwith the published scale.